ScalingStacks

5.5 Asymptotes of the Solomon functional [04G4]

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

Complete original source context · Original author HTML

5.5 Asymptotes of the Solomon functional

We have emphasized that the Solomon functional depends not only on LL, but also the potential fLf_{L}, and that the freedom of additive constants causes the space of (L,fL)(L,f_{L}) to be noncompact, even though the space of Lagrangians ℒ\mathcal{L} is more or less compact under the varifold/current topology. We now wish to explain why the asymptotic behaviour of the Solomon functional should be controlled by Thomas-Yau semistability. The key tool is an a priori bound on the difference between the Solomon functional and the elementary functional, for which we gave sufficient conditions in section 3.8.3 and 5.2.2.

In the setup of (N,A)(N,A)-potential clustering (cf. Cor. 5.9, section 5.2.1), we will rewrite the elementary functional 𝒮¯\bar{\mathcal{S}} (cf. (45)). Recall we have a Lagrangian LL built from L1,…​LNL_{1},\ldots L_{N}; in the unobstructed immersed Lagrangian context, this structure comes from a twisted complex (cf. section 3.8.3). We introduce the new Lagrangian currents

ℰk=L1+L2…+Lk,k=0,1,2,…N,\mathcal{E}_{k}=L_{1}+L_{2}\ldots+L_{k},\quad k=0,1,2,\ldots N,

which in the immersed context corresponds to the twisted complex (18). In particular ℰN=L\mathcal{E}_{N}=L, which is homologous to L0L_{0}. Thus

𝒮¯=Im​(∑1N(supLifLi)​e−i​θ^​(∫ℰiΩ−∫ℰi−1Ω))−(supL0fL0)​Im​(e−i​θ^​∫L0Ω)=Im​(∑1N−1(supLifLi−supLi+1fLi+1)​e−i​θ^​∫ℰiΩ)+(supLNfLN−supL0fL0)​Im​(e−i​θ^​∫L0Ω).\begin{split}\bar{\mathcal{S}}=&\text{Im}\left(\sum_{1}^{N}(\sup_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}})e^{-i\hat{\theta}}(\int_{\mathcal{E}_{i}}\Omega-\int_{\mathcal{E}_{i-1}}\Omega)\right)-(\sup_{L_{0}}f_{L_{0}})\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{L_{0}}\Omega)\\ =&\text{Im}\left(\sum_{1}^{N-1}(\sup_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}}-\sup_{L_{i+1}}f_{L_{i+1}})e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{\mathcal{E}_{i}}\Omega\right)+(\sup_{L_{N}}f_{L_{N}}-\sup_{L_{0}}f_{L_{0}})\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{L_{0}}\Omega).\end{split}

But we chose in the beginning θ^=arg∫L0Ω.\hat{\theta}=\arg\int_{L_{0}}\Omega. Thus Im​(e−i​θ^​∫L0Ω)=0\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{L_{0}}\Omega)=0, and

𝒮¯=∑1N−1(supLifLi−supLi+1fLi+1)​Im​(e−i​θ^​∫ℰiΩ).\bar{\mathcal{S}}=\sum_{1}^{N-1}(\sup_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}}-\sup_{L_{i+1}}f_{L_{i+1}})\text{Im}\left(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{\mathcal{E}_{i}}\Omega\right). (58)

As part of the potential clustering property, we have

supL1fL1≤supL2fL2≤…≤supLNfLN.\sup_{L_{1}}f_{L_{1}}\leq\sup_{L_{2}}f_{L_{2}}\leq\ldots\leq\sup_{L_{N}}f_{L_{N}}. (59)

We arrive at the following key dichotomy:

  • •

    In the unstable case, there exists some 1≤k≤N−11\leq k\leq N-1, such that

    Im​(e−i​θ^​∫ℰkΩ)>0,\text{Im}\left(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{\mathcal{E}_{k}}\Omega\right)>0,

    or equivalently

    arg∫ℰkΩ>θ^.\arg\int_{\mathcal{E}_{k}}\Omega>\hat{\theta}. (60)

    Notice LL fits into a distinguished triangle

    ℰk→L→∪i≥k+1Li→ℰk[1],\mathcal{E}_{k}\to L\to\cup_{i\geq k+1}L_{i}\to\mathcal{E}_{k}[1],

    We explained in Theorem 3.21 under the extra hypotheses of automatic transversality and the positivity condition, that this leads to a Floer theoretic obstruction. In Conjecture 3.31 we heuristically argued that even without these extra hypotheses, the Floer theoretic obstruction should follow from the Thomas-Yau-Joyce program.

    From a different perspective, we can add an arbitrarily large positive number a>0a>0 to the Lagrangian potential on Lk+1,…​LNL_{k+1},\ldots L_{N}. This is compatible with the Novikov positivity condition, so LL stays unobstructed, but S¯\bar{S} changes by an unbounded amount

    −a​Im​(e−i​θ^​∫ℰiΩ)<0.-a\text{Im}\left(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{\mathcal{E}_{i}}\Omega\right)<0.

    We conclude that in the unstable case, the elementary functional is unbounded from below.

  • •

    In the semistable case, for any LL in the class ℒ\mathcal{L} that can be written in the twisted complex form as above, we always have

    Im(e−i​θ^∫ℰkΩ)≤0,∀k=1,2,…N−1.\text{Im}\left(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{\mathcal{E}_{k}}\Omega\right)\leq 0,\quad\forall k=1,2,\ldots N-1. (61)

    Then the elementary functional (58) is nonnegative.

    In section 5.2 we argued that since the homology class of LL is prescribed a priori, subject to the quantitative almost calibrated assumption, only finitely many possibilities of homology classes can arise for LiL_{i} in any decomposition. Thus the stronger condition

    Im(e−i​θ^∫ℰkΩ)<0,∀k=1,2,…N−1.\text{Im}\left(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{\mathcal{E}_{k}}\Omega\right)<0,\quad\forall k=1,2,\ldots N-1.

    would be equivalent to a uniform bound: for some small c>0c>0,

    Im(e−i​θ^∫ℰkΩ)≤−c<0,∀k=1,2,…N−1.\text{Im}\left(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{\mathcal{E}_{k}}\Omega\right)\leq-c<0,\quad\forall k=1,2,\ldots N-1.

    This holds when the class ℒ\mathcal{L} is stricly stable (cf. Definition 3.32). Together with potential clustering, it implies

    𝒮¯​(L)≥c⁡(supLfL−infLfL+A).\bar{\mathcal{S}}(L)\geq c(\sup_{L}f_{L}-\inf_{L}f_{L}+A).

    Thus if the Lagrangian potential oscillation becomes unbounded, then the elementary functional goes to positive infinity. The geometric intuition is the properness of the Solomon functional modulo a global additive constant for fLf_{L}.

Since the Solomon functional and the elementary functional only differ by a bounded amount, the above conclusions transfer to the Solomon functional. Thus the Solomon functional is bounded below in the semistable case, and unbounded from below in the unstable case. A key slogan here is that the asymptotic behaviour of the Solomon functional is governed by Floer theory. This is analogous to the partially conjectural picture in the variational approach to the HYM equation, where the asymptotic behaviour of the Donaldson functional is governed by algebraic geometry (cf. section 2.5).

Remark 5.26.

In Definition 3.32, the Thomas-Yau semistability makes use of distinguished triangles for all almost calibrated Lagrangian objects, not just those with |θ|≤π2−ϵ|\theta|\leq\frac{\pi}{2}-\epsilon. This makes the Thomas-Yau semistability a priori stronger than the semistable situation of the above dichotomy. We expect from the Thomas-Yau-Joyce picture that both stability notions are actually equivalent under our initial assumption that there is a representative L0L_{0} with |θ|<π2−ϵ|\theta|<\frac{\pi}{2}-\epsilon. But for our main purpose, that Thomas-Yau semistability implies the existence of special Lagrangians, we do not mind Thomas-Yau semistability being stronger than necessary.

5.5.1 Thomas-Yau conjecture

The following is our interpretation of the Thomas-Yau existence conjecture:

Conjecture 5.21.

Let L0L_{0} be an exact, quantiatively almost calibrated, unobstructed Lagrangian object in ℒ\mathcal{L}. Assuming Thomas-Yau semistability for L0L_{0}, then the following (equivalent) statements hold:

  1. 1.

    There is a special Lagrangian representative in ℒ\mathcal{L}.

  2. 2.

    There is no distinguished triangle in ℒ\mathcal{L} satisfying the destabilizing condition.

  3. 3.

    The Solomon functional is bounded from below on ℒ\mathcal{L}.

  4. 4.

    The Solomon functional has a minimizer in ℒ\mathcal{L}.

Here is a glossary of the evidence presented previously.

  • •

    (2)(2) is tautological from Thomas-Yau semistability (cf. Remark 5.26).

  • •

    (1)(1) implies Thomas-Yau semistability: see the Floer theoretic obstructions Thm. 3.21, Thm. 3.26, Conj. 3.31, where we justified this for immersed Lagrangians under the automatic transversality and the positivity condition, or alternatively by assuming Joyce’s program.

  • •

    (2)⇔(3)(2)\iff(3): this is a consequence of (N,A)(N,A)-potential clustering (cf. Cor. 5.9, section 5.2.1), the uniform bound for 𝒮−𝒮¯\mathcal{S}-\bar{\mathcal{S}} (cf. section 5.2.2, 3.8.3), and the formula (58) for the elementary functional.

  • •

    (1)⟹(4)(1)\implies(4): see Prop. 3.40, where we justified this under automatic transversality and the positivity condition.

  • •

    (4)⟹(3)(4)\implies(3): obvious.

The rest of this section concerns (2)⟹(4)(2)\implies(4), and the next section concerns (4)⟹(1)(4)\implies(1). The arguments will rely on several unproven statements, which we consider plausible, but may involve rather significant difficulties or substantial foundational work. Nevertheless, we think it is instructive to see heuristically how everything fits together.

Conjecture 5.22.

In the semistable case, the Solomon functional has a minimizer.

Proof.

(Heuristic) First, we claim that for a minimizing sequence L(k)L^{(k)} of the Solomon functional, without loss of generality the Lagrangian potential fL(k)f_{L}^{(k)} is a priori bounded:

supk‖fL(k)‖L∞≤C.\sup_{k}\left\lVert f_{L}^{(k)}\right\rVert_{L^{\infty}}\leq C. (62)

Consider the potential clustering setup. We can adjust the Lagrangian potentials on LiL_{i} by constants separately, and as long as supLjfLj≤infLifLi\sup_{L_{j}}f_{L_{j}}\leq\inf_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}} for j<ij<i, this process will not affect the Novikov positivity requirement, so the Lagrangian branes should remain in ℒ\mathcal{L}. We view supL1fL1,supL2fL2−supL1fL1,…,supLNfLN−supLN−1fLN−1\sup_{L_{1}}f_{L_{1}},\sup_{L_{2}}f_{L_{2}}-\sup_{L_{1}}f_{L_{1}},\ldots,\sup_{L_{N}}f_{L_{N}}-\sup_{L_{N-1}}f_{L_{N-1}} as independent constants. Adjusting all potentials by a common constant does not affect the Solomon functional, but allows us to set supL1fL1=0\sup_{L_{1}}f_{L_{1}}=0. Decreasing supLifLi−supLi−1fLi−1\sup_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}}-\sup_{L_{i-1}}f_{L_{i-1}} subject to the Novikov positivity requirement will decrease the elementary functional (58), crucially because of the semistability condition (61). The part 𝒮−𝒮¯\mathcal{S}-\bar{\mathcal{S}} is unchanged. Thus after this adjustment, the sequence is still minimizing for the Solomon functional. We can thus achieve supLi−1fLi−1=infLifLi\sup_{L_{i-1}}f_{L_{i-1}}=\inf_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}} for all ii. By the potential clustering property, we then have (62).

Next we need the compactness from geometric measure theory. As discussed in section 5.1 and 5.2, under quantitative almost calibratedness there is an a priori volume bound, and the Lagrangians all remain in a fixed bounded subset of XX, so Federer-Fleming compactness (cf. Theorem 5.2) holds automatically. The uniform potential bound (62) would then justify that the weak limit is an almost calibrated Lagrangian current LL with bounded potential fLf_{L} (cf. Lemma 5.7). The continuity of the Solomon functional (cf. Lemma 5.8) then shows 𝒮⁡(L)=infℒ𝒮\mathcal{S}(L)=\inf_{\mathcal{L}}\mathcal{S}.

In section 5.3 we presented the evidence for the conjectural L2L^{2}-smoothing property, which would allow us to assume a uniform a priori bound on the minimizing sequence

∫L|H→|≤C.\int_{L}|\vec{H}|\leq C.

so we can use Allard compactness theorem 5.3. In effect, we can assume the minimizing sequence converges subsequentially both as currents and as varifolds. By assumption the class ℒ\mathcal{L} is closed under the varifold/current topology of the Lagrangian, so the limit LL lies in ℒ\mathcal{L}, whence provides a minimizer in ℒ\mathcal{L}. ∎

Remark 5.27.

If we demand ℒ\mathcal{L} is closed under the flat topology of currents, without requiring varifold convergence, then we would not need the difficult L2L^{2}-smoothing property in the argument. However, this would allow the pathological behaviour in Example 5.4, which would increase the difficulty of Floer theory for weak regularity Lagrangians.

Remark 5.28.

For the geometric measure theoretic purpose of finding special Lagrangians, the existence of a minimizer as a Lagrangian current LL is probably sufficient. However, for applications to the Fukaya category, it is highly desirable to know that LL carries a formal brane structure (cf. section 5.4), which likely requires resolving Question 12. Some analogies suggest the question may be subtle:

  • •

    In geometric invariant theory (GIT), there are niceties concerning semistable, polystable and stable objects. If we take a sequence of semistable objects in a fixed reductive group orbit, the limit may jump outside the orbit, so that the orbit does not admit a polystable representative. Several semistable orbits may be ‘SS-equivalent’, and each SS-equivalence class contains a unique polystable orbit.

  • •

    In the gauge theory of holomorphic bundles, likewise a sequence of connections in the same complexified gauge orbit may jump outside the orbit in the limit; algebro-geometrically, this jumping of bundle structure is usually related to bundle extensions.

  • •

    One motivation for the Thomas-Yau program is to form the moduli space of (semi)stable Lagrangian branes. The Hausdorff property of the moduli space is a delicate question.

For these reasons, as well as Remark 5.18, we are not certain if the Lagrangian minimizer should be interpreted as a representative in the chosen Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) class, or if several semistable Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) classes should be identified under some suitable SS-equivalence relation. We think this question requires further developments in Floer theory. The question is also reflected in the delicacy of the infinite time limit in Joyce’s Bridgeland stability proposal.

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.